ESRB Refuses To Detail Manhunt 2 Re-Rating Logic 60
Next Generation reports that the ESRB is flatly refusing Leland Yee's request to further outline their logic behind Manhunt 2's re-rating. Says organization president Patrica Vance, "It is simply not our place to reveal specific details about the content we have reviewed, particularly when it involves a product yet to be released. What can be said is that the changes that were made to the game, including the depictions themselves and the context in which those depictions were presented, were sufficient to warrant the assignment of an M (Mature 17+) rating by our raters."
What's the issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
Next story.
Re:What's the issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the issue? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:What's the issue? (Score:4, Informative)
This Film Is Not Yet Rated is a pretty decent documentary on the MPAA ratings and board. There are a few times when I feel like they go overboard, but the general information about the ratings process and history was interesting.
I'd be interested to know how the ESRB comes to ratings conclusions. I mean I know "Violence" or "Sexual Situations" but I'd like to know how they judge them.
Re:What's the issue? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
By consensus. At least, they used to. They're hiring more full-time raters -- and have been since the job position was slashdotted at the beginning of the year -- and that's changing how they work.
Raters watch the footage provided by the publisher (and there are all kinds of contracts and legal documents about what the developer / publisher MUST
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Since this is the US every shotgun blast to the face is penalized 0.1 points while a nipple equates to 75 points.
Re: (Score:2)
So does that make a game with two tits "AO and a half"?
Re: (Score:1)
Only politicians could be so boldly hypocritical....
Makes sense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Translated: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Translated: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB [wikipedia.org]
Plenty of information, at least as much as the MPAA.
"MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language."
I would say that a parent can make a pretty reasonable judgement if this is suitable for their children based off this. Intense violence such as death-by-shiv-through-the-eye, o
Nah, it works by the Golden Rule (Score:2)
My favorite example is about those 2 SouthPark guys. When they made Orgazmo for an independant studio that couldn't afford to pay the MPAA, they had to accept the NC-17 rating. But when they made Bigger, Longer, & Uncut and revcieved another NC-17 rating they accepted it, but Paramount wouldn't and had the MPAA to give it a R rating without a single edit to the film, zip.
Hardly arbitrary or 'willy-nilly', the MPAA knows who pays the bills. The MPAA
Re: (Score:1)
Oversight (Score:4, Informative)
I don't see any problem at all with requiring that the ESRB give details about what it objects to in games to those that request it. Likewise a think the MPAA should also be required to specify how and why it rates movies a particular way. For anyone interested in the MPAA rating process and exactly how shifty it appears to be, check out This Movie is Not Yet Rated which follows a movie as it makes its way through the MPAA and attempts to determine who rates it, and how they come up with the ratings.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And why not? The nanny-staters' next question will be how do we rein in this violent, smut-loving private organization accountable to no one. If the ratings are mere opinion, then Yee's opinion on the game is equally valid.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't Jack Thompson. Don't pretend the grief he can cause won't be permanent.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The tone and context of the imagery in a game/movie is something that is hard to express. The Shawshank Redemption is a movie that follows a bunch of convicts, for example, but the tone is one of respect that lets you know that while they made mistakes,
Re: (Score:2)
I see a problem with it. They're private organizations, and their ratings are by nature a matter of opinion.
That's an excellent point and kind of goes to the heart of the problem. Even though they are a private organization, they serve a role similar to a state agency by restricting the distribution of a game by some arbitrary rating. Admittedly there's no law that says anything rated AO can't be distributed, but it won't be carried in most stores, and if it became common place to distribute AO rated games I'd bet there would be a bunch of laws passed to regulate them. As it is there's already laws in a few pla
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, there are no such laws. Several states have tried passing them but they've all been struck down or enjoined from enforcement. Also, they weren't tied to the
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, so maybe this is a case of a popular urban legend perpetuated by managers for places like Target to keep register drones in line with the company line? I know I've heard managers at a few retail outlets telling sales people that they need to ID for M rated games or the store can be fined.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As for fines, they may well happen, they just won't come from the government. An individual store might get
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see one either, but this should be limited to *after* the game is being released, not before.
Re: (Score:2)
Another solution would be to give certain requesters access to the information under NDA (and non-compete requirements), and thus place legal liability on their heads should they leak information for their own benefit.
Lee, Thompson, CFCC, would probably be reluctant to put t
Re: (Score:2)
Seems a bizarre requirement designed to increase the ESRB workload and allow Jack Thomspon to bury them under a mountain of requests.
They should give details *to the submitter* of the game as to what it objects to, etc, etc. Otherwise how do you know what to change to get a different rating, and whether they are being fair or if you should go public with why they are giving it
Re: (Score:2)
They should give details *to the submitter* of the game as to what it objects to, etc, etc. Otherwise how do you know what to change to get a different rating, and whether they are being fair or if you should go public with why they are giving it the rating they are if it seems unfair/political/etc.
That's fair, just so long as there is some level of transparency in the whole operation. I don't personally know how the ESRB works, but if it works like the MPAA does then they don't release any details at all to anyone outside the ESRB other than the final rating. If they provide the submitter with more details, then I'd say it's mostly a moot point, although I would still be interested to know as a consumer exactly what the criteria are for a particular rating, and also to have some way to verify that
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course PC games are rated, just the same as console games, and by the same organization. Have you ever bought a PC game? Notice the C/E/E10+/T/M/Ao logo in the corner of the cover? Yeah. That's the rating. If you doubt it, click here [esrb.org] and select "Windows PC" in the "Platform" dropdown. They even rate Linux games (all 7 of them,) and PalmOS games, and WebTV games (WTF?,) and Zodic games, and
It probably is a smart thing to do (Score:4, Insightful)
What happens if they say that "the game was rated AO because of graphic decapitation", and then the lawyers end up twisting that rule so that they can press the ESRB how come Baraka's fatality isn't an AO
It's a way that they can do ratings with an "I know it if I see it" type methodology without having to be held accountable why some things are AO and some are mature. They're an industry board, not a government agency, so I'm fine with that. I have no problems with the way the games are being rated now, and I'm ok with manhunt being sold as mature too.
Why is this surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Games are submitted to the ESRB with the understanding of confidentiality. All that the ESRB releases is a final rating, they don't leak the whole content of the game.
Doing anything different would be like the MPAA releasing movie ratings of "This film is rated PG for sci-fi action violence, with some mature content like that scene near the end where Darth Vader reveals that he is Luke's father" or "Rated PG-13 for intense thematic material, violent images and Malcolm Crowe really being dead all along but not realizing it".
If Dr. Linn or Senator Yee want to know what changes have been made to Manhunt 2 then they should be asking Rockstar about it. You know, the people who wrote it, made changes to it, and are in a position to release that kind of information. Hounding the ESRB for details is like calling someone's family doctor to demand details about their health.
Obligatory (Score:3, Funny)
Damn you poster! I wanted to watch that movie!!!
At least I don't recognise "Malcom Crowe" so whatever that movie is I'm spared.
Anyway, since Star Wars is spoiled for me I guess I'll have to rent another flick. I guess I'll try that Bruce Willis thriller everyone was talking about a few years ago but I never got to see. Hmm... what was it's name...
Gamepolitics (Score:5, Informative)
Heres a couple choice stories:
Yee: What is ESRB Trying to Hide? [gamepolitics.com]
Californias Leland Yee: Let Consoles Play Adults Only Games [gamepolitics.com]
Consumer & Game Industry Reps Weigh In On Dreaded AO Rating [gamepolitics.com]
Doesn't matter. (Score:2, Insightful)
I love it how... (Score:2, Insightful)
The double standards of the anti-gaming muppets just go to show how utterly idiotic they actually are.
yapping Yee... (Score:1)
Yee is mad because he feels like he got pwned when that unconstitutional law was rolled back that he put in place in California. it's a grudge match and it's as petty as his laws.
The ESRB should stand strong. (Score:3, Insightful)
"M 17+, Realistic Violence, blood, sexual content"
"13+, cartoon violence"
Blah blah.
Games are the 2000AD version of the Witch hunts that went on in the 1400 to 1600's. It's a distraction against real political issues that no one really seems to care about, like:
"The war on terror, we gonna catch and kill Osama or not?"
"Budget over runs and useless pet projects, like $10 million slipped into the war budget for research why breasts are getting bigger"
"reviewing our current and past laws to see which ones are outdated and should be repealed and rewritten instead of just writing MORE laws to enforce and obfuscate."
These days people care is a 62 year old senator is having sex in rest rooms, how people choose to waste their time and how long some famous hottie is jailed for.
With the ESRB holding their ground and telling these senators to get jacked, we're sending a message that we're done with being pushed around. Now we need to get the government to focus on important topics like Highway speed laws (raise the limits), Fair use copyright, catering to the consumer instead of big business, win the war on terror, stop wasting money on stupid projects and government funding and lower taxes, and review and rewrite foreign polic.
There are tons of things far more important than sex in M rated video games and graphic violence. THere is serious real world violence that needs to be quelled, jobless and homelss, corporations running amok setting repressive laws, making us buy the same item 4 times to use it in a slightly different way and so on. We need better education and understanding, not just kicking the "trouble" child out of class and watching their grades go down. We need to raise the bar on education, not lower it because more kids are failing. I know it's easier to lower standards than to fix the problem, but this is the future of our world here. Any one who watched the movie "Idiocracy" can see that is our future.
In such a "Free" country, I'm not feeling the love here. I'm not feeling the freedom to drive my car down an empty highway at 90. I'm not feeling the freedom of making a mix CD for the lady I am courting, without the fear of defending myself in court. As kids we used to share the newest computer game and install them on the school computers. Others would love that game and go buy a copy for themselves...
I feel myself straying off topic. But I'm passionate about our freedoms and how fast we're loosing them. It extends far beyond the ESRB and Manhunt, and Hot Coffee, and Bioshock. It stretches into how soft we've really become and how the innovative spirit the country was founded on is now lost in Patent lawsuits and mega corporate infighting.
Re: (Score:1)
Why do you have the right to do this? Roads were not built to be driven on at that speed. Neither were the cars that are legal to drive on them. And unless you live in an ecological wasteland, there are things like deer that one must watch out for.
Further, driving at twice the standard highway speed decreases reaction time. Do you have training and experience in racing? Even if you do, the issues above make it idiotic to drive at s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Listing your puerile accidents isn't increasing your credibility, or making us feel more secure about allowing you the 'freedom' to drive at 90 MPH on the freeway.
I have a suggestion. Follow the damn speed limit.
Express your freedom by protesting, advocating whatever you want, freely assembling, pursuing happiness. Move where you want. Work at what you want to. Associate with whoever you want to.
Oh, and I hope you pay better attention now while you're driving, or your license will likely acquire unwa
Games aren't so cut and dried (Score:1)
Using a chainsaw to kill a single zombie may be graphic, but killing 10 or 20 at the same time is a lot more graphic. So it isn't just a case of saying "tone down the zombie/chainsaw death"; a more nuanced approach is required. As such, the ESRB needs a more flexible approach, which is the opposite
Re: (Score:1)
Their "decisions" have an effect on Joe Citizen, it's not unreasonable to ask how they make them.
LK